D&D 5E Is Paladine Bahamut? Is Takhisis Tiamat? Fizban's Treasury Might Reveal The Answer!

According to WotC's James Wyatt, Fizban's Treasury of Dragons introduces a new cosmology for dragon gods, where the same beings, including Fizban, echo across various D&D campaign settings with alternate versions of themselves (presumably like Paladine/Bahamut, or Takhisis/Tiamat). Also... the various version can merge into one single form.

Takhisis is the five-headed dragon god of evil from the Dragonlance setting. Paladine is the platinum dragon god of good (and also Fizban's alter-ego).

Takhisis.jpg


Additionally, the book will contain psychic gem dragons, with stats for all four age categories of the five varieties (traditionally there are Amethyst, Crystal, Emerald, Sapphire, and Topaz), plus Dragonborn characters based on metallic, chromatic, and gem dragons.


 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Russ Morrissey

Russ Morrissey

Parmandur

Book-Friend
My feeling on it is that WotC is basically going to be telling 3rd parties something like, "Hey, we'd appreciate it if you are as consistent as you can be with stuff beyond the core 3, but if you miss something don't sweat it, and don't kill yourself trying to double check things."
Given that the WotC team has been involved behind the scenes of a major motion picture and a major AAA video game recently, and with book deals, this policy is probably borne of very practical experience.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JEB

Legend
Canon did not change this year...
Not completely true. The 2014 5E DMG (page 4) refers to "the official setting where Forgotten Realms novels, game products, and digital games are assumed to take place." (They also reference novels later on when talking about official campaign settings.) Since they definitely don't include novels or digital games as part of 5E canon anymore, that part's changed for sure. (I'm pretty confident that DMG line won't be in the 2024 version...)

As for game products, it's not so clear. It's possible they always considered only the core 5E rulebooks as definitively canon, and the other products were only accepted into their internal canon on a case-by-case basis. However, they certainly never indicated that was the case until this year, and earlier 5E products in particular seemed happy to reference classic setting lore in a way that matched older-edition details (as I collated in this thread, in that brief period when all of 5E still appeared to be canon). It would certainly have been reasonable to assume that unless specifically contradicted, any detail from a 5E book, and likely any detail from previous editions, could still be considered "true" for 5E. But even if that assumption was ever true, it definitely isn't now.

I do also find it interesting that Crawford initially described the canon policy as "if it has not appeared in a book since 2014, we don't consider it canonical for the games." Either he misunderstood, or this policy was still in flux even at that late stage; definitely a suggestion that it was a new decision.
 

Those other examples touch on canon.

It's canonical for Strahd to sleep in a coffin, because vampire. Vampire is canon in the MM(Core 3) and says that they sleep in a coffin.

It's canonical for Zariel to be the ruler of Avernus, because that's what it says in the DMG(Core 3).

Menzoberranzan is the only iffy one there. It is mentioned in the DMG, so it's canonical that way, but the DMG doesn't say that it's underground or mention Lolth. It's possible that he knew it was mentioned and didn't realize how limited that information was.

It's pretty clear that they want the Core 3 to be the public canon and that they have an internal canon for themselves to follow.
Okay, granted that as you said, a couple of those can be found or inferred from the text.

But do you think that's the point he was going for when the sentence imnediately preceding it was: "If you’re not sure what else is canonical in fifth edition, let me give you a quick primer"?

I'm not seeing how there can be disagreement about what was said here. The question I'm addressing isn't about what is being done, but what this article says is being done.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Okay, granted that as you said, a couple of those can be found or inferred from the text.

But do you think that's the point he was going for when the sentence imnediately preceding it was: "If you’re not sure what else is canonical in fifth edition, let me give you a quick primer"?
Absolutely I do. He was showing how to figure out what outside of the core three would be canonical. His examples show that if you can link it to the core 3, then that aspect is canonical.
 

Then whats canon for players? You say 'of course' but I dont think thats a given.

Why wouldnt Rising be canon for Creators for Eberron?
Because they've read the setting? Do your players not read the books?
I’m a player, and we play in a homebrew setting. Our group doesn’t really read anything, we just listen to our DM and come up with our own ideas to create the world together.
Not only that, but I have had stories in various worlds where the nature of the cosmos matters and is something the PCs gain insight into during the story.
Ok, but in Eberron the fact (or not) that there is a multiverse outside of the Eberron cosmology should matter because no one knows that or could know that. That is not something the players could or should know IMO.
You really don't see the difference?
I don’t see any difference that matters to me. That is why I asked you. What matters to you.
And by "berks" I mean that it makes the detestable "berk" dynamic of Planescape canon, even for worlds that didn't used to have anything to do with it.
I have no idea what that means, I am not familiar with planescape.
The idea of elves was invented by Corellon, the idea of dragons exists because of Tiamat and Bahamut, no matter what world you're on. Believing in any part of the lore of the world you come from makes you a clueless berk.

I...dislike it, to say the least.
But that those are all just stories (just like the progenitor gods), no one has any idea of they are true. I know our myths don’t follow the 5e, or 4e, or 3e, or 2e, or 1e lore, even if we have some similarities to all of them.
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I’m a player, and we play in a homebrew setting. Our group doesn’t really read anything, we just listen to our DM and come up with our own ideas to create the world together.

Ok, but in Eberron the fact (or not) that there is a multiverse outside of the Eberron cosmology should matter because no one knows that or could know that. That is not something the players could or should know IMO.

I don’t see any difference that matters to me. That is why I asked you. What matters to you.

I have no idea what that means, I am not familiar with planescape.

But that those are all just stories (just like the progenitor gods), no one has any idea of they are true. I know our myths don’t follow the 5e, or 4e, or 3e, or 2e, or 1e lore, even if we have some similarities to all of them.
Okay.

Im sure you enjoy playing your way. 🤷‍♂️
 




Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top